There is a simple choice that society has to make. Is it better (1) to get higher incomes and better lives for the poor no matter what happens to the rich, or (2) to reduce the gap between the poor and the rich by reducing what the rich have while not increasing the income of the poor?
For most people, this question sounds stupid. Nearly 90% of people polled chose higher income for the poor over reduced income for the rich in an income equality scheme. For the average person the question boils down to whether or not we should strive to make the lives of some people better or to make the lives of a different group of people worse. Basic human decency says that improving the lot of some should be the goal.
The problem that we face as a society, however, is that mush of the left values equality in society more than improving the lot of the poor. That is why president Obama always talks about inequality rather than about improving the lives, incomes and opportunity of the lower income levels in America. Liberals want to punish the rich rather than to help the poor.
If you think about it, the liberal outlook is a bizarre position for a major political party. The Democrats become the party of revenge against the successful rather than the party of hope for the poor. They become the party of punishment for people who have done nothing wrong rather than the party of opportunity for the needy.
Right now, there are probably plenty of liberals who are reading this and thinking to themselves that I don't know what I am talking about. For that group, let me point out the example of the new mayor of New York, Bill DiBlasio. He has been pushing for higher taxes on the wealthy in order to fund universal preschool in New York City. Yesterday, he was asked if he would still want the higher taxes on the wealthy if the preschool plan could be funded from current income. His answer was yes. You see, for a leftist like DiBlasio, the important thing is to take from the rich. Help for the poor is secondary; it is just an excuse for punishing the rich.
Now we all know that New York City is not representative of America. (Thank God for that!) We all need to make clear to those in Washington that the DiBlasio/Democrat idea of punishing the wealthy is an unacceptable focus for our country. We need to celebrate success and to seek to spread it much further through our economy. Remember, no matter what the leftists say, a starving man will not feel better if others around him are all starving too. Food, not the infliction of pain on others, is what ends starvation.
For most people, this question sounds stupid. Nearly 90% of people polled chose higher income for the poor over reduced income for the rich in an income equality scheme. For the average person the question boils down to whether or not we should strive to make the lives of some people better or to make the lives of a different group of people worse. Basic human decency says that improving the lot of some should be the goal.
The problem that we face as a society, however, is that mush of the left values equality in society more than improving the lot of the poor. That is why president Obama always talks about inequality rather than about improving the lives, incomes and opportunity of the lower income levels in America. Liberals want to punish the rich rather than to help the poor.
If you think about it, the liberal outlook is a bizarre position for a major political party. The Democrats become the party of revenge against the successful rather than the party of hope for the poor. They become the party of punishment for people who have done nothing wrong rather than the party of opportunity for the needy.
Right now, there are probably plenty of liberals who are reading this and thinking to themselves that I don't know what I am talking about. For that group, let me point out the example of the new mayor of New York, Bill DiBlasio. He has been pushing for higher taxes on the wealthy in order to fund universal preschool in New York City. Yesterday, he was asked if he would still want the higher taxes on the wealthy if the preschool plan could be funded from current income. His answer was yes. You see, for a leftist like DiBlasio, the important thing is to take from the rich. Help for the poor is secondary; it is just an excuse for punishing the rich.
Now we all know that New York City is not representative of America. (Thank God for that!) We all need to make clear to those in Washington that the DiBlasio/Democrat idea of punishing the wealthy is an unacceptable focus for our country. We need to celebrate success and to seek to spread it much further through our economy. Remember, no matter what the leftists say, a starving man will not feel better if others around him are all starving too. Food, not the infliction of pain on others, is what ends starvation.
No comments:
Post a Comment